this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
84 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19194 readers
2909 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund 9 points 3 weeks ago (16 children)

"And though it lost in Oregon, she pointed out that the measure had majority support in jurisdictions that currently use ranked choice voting, such as Multnomah (home to Portland) and Benton counties."

Problem: In Portland, yes, a majority of voters did vote for the state wide ranked choice ballot measure... but 20% of voters completely SKIPPED the ranked choice races for Mayor and City Council.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/11/portlands-ranked-choice-debut-causes-voter-engagement-to-crater-1-in-5-who-cast-ballots-chose-no-one-for-city-council.html

They had an option of ranking their top 6 choices and did not choose any.

[–] credo 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That’s too many positions to research for just one race. Five to six would probably be about the right amount of candidates for a single seat RCV.

I think [open] primaries still have a place to help weed out the field and narrow in on specific candidates.

[–] jordanlund 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Fortunately, the research wasn't that hard because it's super easy to eliminate the looney tunes candidates.

Ex. this guy:

Still, stunning how many first round votes he got...

p.s. "Michael Necula"? Mike Neck? Spot the vampire running for office!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Not every party has the money or resources to run a primary

[–] jordanlund 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

These are all non-partisan races.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

OK so then who should be running primaries?

[–] jordanlund 1 points 3 weeks ago

In this case, the ranked choice voting is supposed to serve as an instant primary.

I guess you could run a 16 candidate primary and narrow it down to the top 6 for a rank 6 general election, but you'd still have the same problem, you'd just be adding a 2nd election.

load more comments (13 replies)